Explore the course.
Find your next step.

Goal: Support one inference about a character with two precise details and identify one unresolved question.

Before this: Distinguish a statement in a text from an interpretation.

Try together: Together explain why folding the sketch alone is weaker evidence of fear than a pattern of delay plus approach.

Goal: Explain how three story moments develop a thematic statement and write an objective summary.

Before this: Support an inference with details; distinguish a topic from a claim.

Try together: Compare “Change” with “A successful method may need revision when conditions change.” Explain which is a theme and check it against the ending.

Goal: Identify a claim, evaluate two evidence limitations and write a defensible narrower conclusion.

Before this: Identify a claim, reason and example.

Try together: Together explain why adding fifty more opinions about liking the room would not by itself measure achievement.

Goal: Revise a summary into a coherent scene using dialogue, sensory detail and a moment of reflection.

Before this: Write a sequence of events with a clear point of view.

Try together: Compare “She was nervous” with an action showing hesitation. Discuss what the action adds and what it cannot reveal alone.

Goal: Revise three nonparallel constructions and explain how grammatical choices affect meaning or emphasis.

Before this: Recognize verbs and lists in sentences.

Try together: Revise “The report should be accurate, clear and persuade the reader.” Discuss whether the intended list describes qualities or actions.

Goal: Present a clear recommendation using two sources, a counterpoint and an accurate visual aid.

Before this: Distinguish a source’s finding from a broader conclusion; organize a paragraph.

Try together: Explain together why the phrase “24 students were dissatisfied” cannot be derived from the log.

Goal: Analyze how a character’s conflicting motives affect an interaction and advance the plot.

Before this: Support an inference with more than one detail.

Try together: Compare “Rafi never cares about winning” with a qualified account of competing motives. Which details resist the absolute claim?

Goal: Compare chronological and interrupted versions of a scene and explain two effects of their structure.

Before this: Distinguish chronological order from the order a narrator reveals events.

Try together: Discuss whether the flashback confirms guilt or merely directs suspicion. Cite the detail that limits certainty.

Goal: Analyze two rhetorical choices and evaluate how each advances the speaker’s purpose without assuming it proves the claim.

Before this: Identify an argument’s purpose and distinguish relevant evidence from a slogan.

Try together: Rewrite “locked drawer” as “an existing review queue.” Discuss how the change affects tone and urgency without changing the basic fact of delay.

Goal: Produce a source-attributed synthesis, assess each source’s usefulness and identify a research gap.

Before this: Take accurate source notes; distinguish counts from interpretations.

Try together: Compare the phrases “Thirty students failed to repair an item” and “The log recorded thirty visits.” Explain why only one preserves the source’s measure.

Goal: Develop a claim and counterclaim with evidence and identify a limitation of each.

Before this: State a precise claim and support it with evidence.

Try together: Together revise “Only lazy students want shorter sessions” into a fair access-based counterclaim.

Goal: Summarize agreement and disagreement after a prepared conversation and justify a qualified conclusion.

Before this: Prepare evidence notes and summarize another person’s position accurately.

Try together: Practice paraphrasing “I need enough uninterrupted time” without turning it into “You do not care about other groups.”

Goal: Build a qualified interpretation using three details and identify two matters the text does not settle.

Before this: Support literary claims with precise details and consider alternatives.

Try together: Compare “The narrator is definitely guilty” with “The account gives reasons to question the waiting claim.” Identify which better matches the evidence.

Goal: Analyze two themes across three moments and explain their interaction without reducing one to the other.

Before this: Trace a theme through changes in action; write an objective summary.

Try together: Discuss why “Loyalty is bad; truth is good” loses the ending’s complexity.

Goal: Explain how structure, contrast and concession advance a purpose and evaluate their persuasive effect.

Before this: Analyze metaphor, repetition and audience purpose separately from evidentiary proof.

Try together: Remove the concession sentence and compare the audience relationship. Explain why a reasonable reader might still prefer the shorter version.

Goal: Integrate quantitative and verbal sources, evaluate a discrepancy and recommend a proportionate next step.

Before this: Read a table with units; evaluate source scope and attribution.

Try together: Discuss why 12/20=60% is an accurate calculation but “60% of all visitors want evenings” is not established.

Goal: Write a coherent short scene with two narrative lines, a meaningful transition and a final reflection.

Before this: Sustain a limited point of view; use dialogue and transitions intentionally.

Try together: Together identify a sentence that would violate Leo’s limited knowledge before 3:15: “He knew Inez’s new map was under the folder.” Explain the problem.

Goal: Revise a passage into two syntactic versions and explain how clause placement changes emphasis.

Before this: Recognize independent and dependent clauses; preserve meaning during revision.

Try together: Compare although with because in the model. Explain why replacing one with the other changes the claimed relationship.

Goal: Distinguish literal and implied meaning and support an interpretation with three contextual details.

Before this: Use contextual evidence to qualify an interpretation.

Try together: Discuss whether the line would carry the same irony if the entrance worked and the explanation were one useful sentence.

Goal: Evaluate two structural choices using earlier details and explain a tradeoff in each ending.

Before this: Analyze structural choices and distinguish an effect from personal preference.

Try together: Explain why B is not simply “the same ending with more detail.” Identify the new action and its consequence for characterization.

Goal: Explain three stages in a key term’s meaning and determine whether the shifts clarify or obscure the argument.

Before this: Recognize a claim’s scope and analyze how a text develops an idea.

Try together: Discuss whether using the final definition to claim everyone felt welcome would exceed the writer’s scope.

Goal: Develop and revise a focused research question, connect three source types and identify two warranted next inquiries.

Before this: Evaluate source relevance, paraphrase accurately and distinguish a broad topic from a question.

Try together: Compare “Did the newsletter help everyone?” with a question specifying which issues, whose access and what evidence would count.

Goal: Write a precise recommendation that fairly develops a counterclaim, anticipates an audience concern and acknowledges limits.

Before this: Develop a fair counterclaim with accurate evidence and limitations.

Try together: Together identify the unsupported premise in “Four more weeks will certainly remove all errors.” Suggest a fairer counterclaim.

Goal: Synthesize competing claims and evidence, resolve one apparent contradiction and identify two necessary research questions.

Before this: Prepare evidence, represent opposing views accurately and distinguish fact from value priorities.

Try together: Practice a question that connects two speakers’ ideas: “If both schedules give twelve hours, which task need makes the longer block important?” Explain why it advances the discussion.